thirdcrank wrote:Interesting that the jury heard evidence of the driver's propensity to act like this, including footage from a dashboard camera. I do wonder how that was treated when it was first reported.

On the plus side, it does prove that some good can come out of reporting incidents even if nothing is done at the time

Hi,I am not sure what question you are asking here.But I have already said in another post that some one who intentionally aims their car at a individual not in a car should face serious penalties.I have had it happen to me.

Sounds like he did do this, and with obvious knowledge that a vehicle driven at a person standing in the road would very well kill him, he cant say he did not see the dayglo jacket as this would mean that he was blind to the individual he had just had an argee with Even a cyclist wearing dayglo.

How was his previous history of road rage treated, was it reported (thats the question ? ) If yes there has to be some action done with these individuals who have a propensity to do this, And When they get behind a wheel again if they are even suitable they a dash cam would remain even for life

I wasn't asking a question. The general issue of why killing and injuring people with motor vehicles does not generally result in a conviction for murder or wounding has been raised before on here. Even causing death by dangerous driving is replaced by the lesser careless charge.

The decision to charge murder and the successful prosecution must have been based on strong evidence of the intention needed to prove murder. I'd be interested to read a more detailed account. Perhaps it will be in tomorrow's papers.

====================================================================PS I've just found this:

'Raging bull'Earlier in the trial, the jury was told of two previous road rage incidents involving Slater.

One motorist described him as a "raging bull" on the M62 in January last year and told how the lorry driver had threatened to kill him.

An incident in Oldham on December 17 was recorded on a "dash cam" and showed Slater leaving his lorry cab on two occasions, running at a car and kicking and punching the vehicle while trying to force the driver's door open.

Those are when the action should have been taken, not now.

A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.A good pun is it's own reword

There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

'Raging bull'Earlier in the trial, the jury was told of two previous road rage incidents involving Slater.

One motorist described him as a "raging bull" on the M62 in January last year and told how the lorry driver had threatened to kill him.

An incident in Oldham on December 17 was recorded on a "dash cam" and showed Slater leaving his lorry cab on two occasions, running at a car and kicking and punching the vehicle while trying to force the driver's door open.

Those are when the action should have been taken, not now.

+1 why does it seem so often that someone has to be killed before a menace such as this is dealt with? Perhaps there are several cases where action is taken before a more serious incident occurs and these just don't get reported but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it

On the basis of what we normally see happening in the courts I seriously doubt that there are people being removed from the road when they first show signs of dangerous behaviour. It's only when that behaviour is converted into the inevitable consequence that they get any feedback about their behaviour.

A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.A good pun is it's own reword

There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Elizabethsdad wrote: ... +1 why does it seem so often that someone has to be killed before a menace such as this is dealt with? Perhaps there are several cases where action is taken before a more serious incident occurs and these just don't get reported but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it

For the umpteenth time I'll point out that what used to be called traffic policing and is now roads policing is no longer any sort of priority.

A Home Office spokeswoman said crime had fallen by more than a fifth under the coalition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31260003That news item is about reductions in traffic police over the last four years so the data were presumably obtained to try to embarrass the present govt., but the trend began three decades ago and there's no likelihood of any sort of reversal.

Since the establishment of the CPS and the enaction of PACE, policing in E&W has been converted from a system based, in theory at least, on prevention of offending by visible patrolling to one of investigation, especially investigation restricted to addressing priorities or meeting objectives. The trend to increased emphasis on investigation has also been driven by more attention being paid to what goes on behind closed doors, which uniformed patrolling cannot influence much. Now, using a vehicle as weapon is no different to using anything else, except that so much of it can be characterised as traffic incidents and ipso facto, not a priority. (Hence the weasel-words from the Home Office spinner.)

Within what I refer to as "road traffic" we know that priority has been given to the investigation of so-called KSI collisions. ie that's why it "seems that someone has to be killed" To illustrate with a recent case - which seems hardly likely to have been road-rage, a detailed investigation will reveal in due course why a runaway truck on a steep hill killed four people, but not why road haulage now goes largely unpoliced.

This affects us as vulnerable road users in several ways. First, as even a collision between a motor vehicle and a human being is much more likely to be KSI than a collision between two motor vehicles, we are seen as the problem, rather than the victims As in "Cyclists are their own worst enemy" (Not something that's so easy to slip off the tongue when it's a child on a pedestrian crossing.) Then, it's now been reported that KSI colliisions do not necessarily merit a review of the evidence by the CPS before a decision to conclude an investigation. Thirdly, even when there's any sort of "crackdown" it has to be limited to the available police resources. eg Operation Safeway, the "response" to riders being crushed by tipper trucks seems constrained by the fact that there are restricted numbers of police officers with the training and experience to check lorries and their drivers but countless PCSO's available to advise cyclists about helmets and high-viz togs and to issue tickets for pavement cycling.

Here's a thought for MIckF from my link

In the 12-month periods ending March 2012 and March 2013, Devon and Cornwall had no full-time traffic officers